Another house smashed by a car.
in [UK Drivers]
|
Prev: Which side is the fuel tank filler on?
Next: You tube (shunt) lorry driver keeps his HGV licence
From: GT on 26 May 2010 04:48 "Doug" <jagmad(a)riseup.net> wrote in message news:9aafe177-6758-4755-97b5-d6a235a083fb(a)k31g2000vbu.googlegroups.com... > No cyclist could do this much damage which clearly proves how much > more dangerous cars are. So there was an accident. Your point?
From: GT on 26 May 2010 04:50 "Doug" <jagmad(a)riseup.net> wrote in message news:da0d487f-7733-4ab3-9477-3cd404fdf73d(a)a20g2000vbc.googlegroups.com... > On 24 May, 10:01, Derek Geldard <im...(a)miniac.demon.co.uk> wrote: >> On Sun, 23 May 2010 22:20:43 -0700 (PDT), Doug <jag...(a)riseup.net> >> wrote: >> >> >No cyclist could do this much damage which clearly proves how much >> >more dangerous cars are. >> >> Yebbut, being a heavy powerful machine it achieves more, carries more >> people, goes further, and gets there quicker. >> >> I 'd have thought you'd have been bound to notice. >> > That may be so but a car is still much more dangerous than a bicycle. > The question is, should utility be placed before road safety and why > aren't cars better regulated in the interests of safety? Doug - you made a typo - you said cars aren't safety regulated. Its bicycles that aren't safety regulated. Cars have to comply with many legal safety constraints - its called an MOT test.
From: GT on 26 May 2010 04:52 "Doug" <jagmad(a)riseup.net> wrote in message news:b507c344-591d-4142-9e28-148612961614(a)z17g2000vbd.googlegroups.com... On 24 May, 15:04, "Dr Zoidberg" <AlexNOOOOO!!!...@drzoidberg.co.uk> wrote: > "Doug" <jag...(a)riseup.net> wrote in message > > news:da0d487f-7733-4ab3-9477-3cd404fdf73d(a)a20g2000vbc.googlegroups.com... > > > On 24 May, 10:01, Derek Geldard <im...(a)miniac.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >> On Sun, 23 May 2010 22:20:43 -0700 (PDT), Doug <jag...(a)riseup.net> > >> wrote: > > >> >No cyclist could do this much damage which clearly proves how much > >> >more dangerous cars are. > > >> Yebbut, being a heavy powerful machine it achieves more, carries more > >> people, goes further, and gets there quicker. > > >> I 'd have thought you'd have been bound to notice. > > > That may be so but a car is still much more dangerous than a bicycle. > > The question is, should utility be placed before road safety and why > > aren't cars better regulated in the interests of safety? > > He was driving illegally. > If he hadn't been ignoring the law this wouldn't have happened. > How do you propose to enforce speeding laws (or indeed any law at all) > with > full compliance? > It would be impossible to achieve full compliance but much more could be done to reduce the danger from cars by concentrating on them instead of relatively harmless cyclists Oh, you mean measures like compulsory safety tests. Annual inspections. Road traffic police. Speed cameras. Speed bumps. Traffic lights. Legal examinations for all drivers. Safety equipment as standard. Speed limits. Prosecution for illegal use. etc etc. Yes perhaps we should introduce measures like these!!
From: GT on 26 May 2010 05:05 "Doug" <jagmad(a)riseup.net> wrote in message news:96bc7102-785b-4b10-8e7a-42515ed88e9f(a)a16g2000vbr.googlegroups.com... > On 24 May, 06:20, Doug <jag...(a)riseup.net> burbled: Doug says, >> "Driver flees when car hits house near Norwich and Doug says, > A man has been charged with drink driivng. Doug, the only news you seem to post is anything involving cars - envy is a terrible thing. Why don't you just get yourself acquianted with the road laws in this country, sit a driving test and get yourself a car then you can judge for yourself whether they are comfortable, useful devices, rather than allowing yourself to be brainwashed by the media and small groups of tree huggers and then perhaps you waste so much of your time trying to brainwash others!
From: GT on 26 May 2010 05:06
"Derek C" <del.copeland(a)tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message news:7a80b2c4-f57f-4857-a9f1-556105022685(a)y21g2000vba.googlegroups.com... On May 25, 7:46 am, "Dr Zoidberg" <AlexNOOOOO!!!...@drzoidberg.co.uk> wrote: > "Doug" <jag...(a)riseup.net> wrote in message > > news:96bc7102-785b-4b10-8e7a-42515ed88e9f(a)a16g2000vbr.googlegroups.com... > > > On 24 May, 06:20, Doug <jag...(a)riseup.net> wrote: > >> No cyclist could do this much damage which clearly proves how much > >> more dangerous cars are. > > >> "Driver flees when car hits house near Norwich > > >> Car embedded in side of bungalow, near Norwich > <snip> > > > Update > > > A man has been charged with drink driivng. > > >http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/norfolk/8700583.stm > > So he was drunk and speeding when he crashed, and has been charged. > > He has broken the law and is being dealt with appropriately. > > What's the problem? > > -- I wish that a few more law breaking, red light jumping, footpath riding, drunken, dangerous, speeding cyclists could be dealt with appropriately by the law? No No No, I won't have that. Cyclists don't speed - they "fail to make good progress" and would fail any driving test on such a clause. For that reason, every single cyclist *is* riding illegally on the public highways. |